On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 14:17 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > Quoting Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I can only think of a couple of solution: > > > > - Remove these unnecessary checks completely: Follow the example of all > > other distributions and do not depend on anything kernel-ish for such > > packages. A recompilation of the kernel with different options can > > easily cause what the checks are trying to avoid anyway. > > > > - Make the checks in linux-info non-fatal. I.e., don't die but issue > > warnings instead. That's the *least* that I'd be happy with. > > > > What do you people think the proper solution is? > > In my opinion, the way it is currently done (require those options which are > required for the package to function correctly) is the right way to do it. > > Just because other distributions do it differently doesn't justify us > changing. > I've seen and recieved various reports of positive feedback about the way we > handle this. > > The only real argument is that it makes it difficult for people who cross > compile packages for use on other systems only, in which case it might make > sense for the possibility to override the behaviour.
Cross-compiling, embedded systems, and release-building all suffer from this. While it can be worked around for the releases, it is a serious pain to have to constantly change how we build our releases to match with new "functionality" in packages that impose artificial restrictions, such as this. CONFIG_PPP is *not* required to build ppp, so it shouldn't be in the ebuild as a requirement. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
